The vice-president is an unrepentant drug warrior and has promised "no changes" to old-age entitlements that screw the young.

So is Joe Biden, our country's vice president, going to announce a run for presidency? Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders had strong showings in the Democratic debate earlier this week, but neither (especially Hillary) really mopped up the floor.

Speculation is rampant and rising that Biden, a longtime senator from Delaware before becoming Obama's veep, is about to announce any second now.

Let's be clear: Joe Biden would be awful from any sort of libertarian perspective. He's a hawk mostly in foreign policy and if he's not quite as awful as the last draft-averse patriot who served as vice president, he's part of one of the two worst administrations this century when it comes to fighting "dumb" wars. On top of that, he's been silent on the issue of domestic surveillance, torture, and other niceities of today's modern warfare.

For virtually his entire career, Biden has been a joke and a punchline, known not simply for dada-esque gaffes but also for cheating while in law school and, inexplicably, plagiarizing biographical details from a British politician during a disastrous White House run in 1988. Then there's the weird stuff during swearing-in ceremonies.

And, of course, Biden's leading role as an architect and enforcer of the drug war. From my new Daily Beast article, "Joe Biden, Narc in Chief":

he’s always despised drug culture, even marijuana, which he believes is a gateway drug. In the 1980s, Biden was instrumental in creating the office of the drug czar and called for nothing short of total war on pot and pills. “Mr. President,” he raged, outdoing even Ronald Reagan in just-say-no bellicosity, “you say you want a war on drugs, but if that’s what you want we need another D-Day. Instead you’re giving us another Vietnam—a limited war fought on the cheap, financed on the sly, with no clear objectives, and ultimately destined for stalemate and human tragedy.” Give Biden bonus credit for chutzpah in invoking Vietnam—like Dick Cheney, he managed to snag five deferments from the military draft his college days.

Biden's worst contribution to the drug war might be the idiotic RAVE Act (for “Reducing Americans’ Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act”), passed during the early Aughts' hysteria over club kids dancing themselves to death. The RAVE Act didn't just up penalties for drug sales and use, it criminalized knowing that drug use was likely to happen in a way that made it that much harder for event organizers to implement sound harn-reduction policies.

The law prohibited “knowingly opening, maintaining, managing, controlling, renting, leasing, making available for use, or profiting from any place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance.” If you owned a club or a house or even an open field and enough high kids showed up, you’re screwed.

The ironic-yet-entirely-predictable twist? By criminalizing any knowledge of drug use, the RAVE Act actually increases the likelihood of bad outcomes. If event organizers acknowledge drug use and try to pass around harm-reduction literature or staff intervention services, they’re putting themselves at risk.

Here's a cherry on top, especially if you're not already retired: Biden is on the record saying, "There will be no changes to Social Security" or Medicare. That plays well with seniors but it is a declaration of war against younger Americans. Since 2010, most workers will get less from Social Security than they put in (assuming a 2 percent annual return on the employer's and employee's contributions). So Biden wants to guarantee a terrible retirement for you. Medicare aleady doesn't cover even half of its expenses via premiums and taxes, so on that score we're looking at massive tax increases on we the living.

Go ahead and run, Joe Biden. We can always use another terrible, awful presidential candidate.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

You know this, but few who don't run businesses do:
She is the Director of the State board of Equalization (sales tax collector), and as such, she's now sponsoring confabs on 'how to improve your business' and 'diversity'.

Such a wonderful use of the taxes I send her sorry ass. This town produces some seriously horrible politicians that just never go away. Where do you suppose they will send Mirkarimi when he loses his upcoming bid for Sheriff? There has to be some board he can sit on to slurp the taxpayers teats.

There was something in the RAVE act too. I think it was just a suggestion that glowsticks and pacifiers would be good evidence that an event was meant to be a place for people to do drugs. Of course, people like Ma will keep trying the same old shit.

One of two things should happen (or both). Seniors should at the very least get their money back adjusted for inflation (cut the fucking military) while phasing the whole thing out and/or Congress should all go to prison for perpetuating this ponzi scheme.

The big thing the government did to kick the can down the road in the 80’s was to change the retirement system for federal employees by now requiring them to pay into social security. That switch was around 1985. At that time, current fed employees could opt to stay in the old generous defined benefit system, pay no SS withholding and not receive any SS benefits for their federal service upon retirement. New fed employees had to pay into SS but obviously would not be drawing on SS for some time in any meaningful amount. For decades this caused a influx of SS payments without a commensurate increase in benefits. Now it is thirty years later. Those federal employees who are under the new system are starting to retire in meaningful numbers and will begin to draw collectively ever increasing SS benefits without a commensurate increase in payments to SS.

Social Security has been a thoroughly rotten deal since it was initiated in 1935 because it rests on state coercion. It was apodictically certain that future generations would be screwed by actuarial deficiency, by inflation, or by shorter life spans. By the 1960s, the trend in life spans was evident and Congress enacted legislation to increase payouts for inflation, so actuarial deficiency was inevitable.

Whether one can expect a positive rate of return on his FICA "contributions" is a different matter. Like all Ponzi schemes, Social Security yielded significantly positive expected returns to almost all early participants. (Sure one could die before recovering "contributions", but the actuarial expectation before death was that they would be recovered with positive ROI.)

Now the expected rate of return is, on average, negative for young people. However, the actual expectation is heavily influenced by an individual's projection of income history. As it stands, in 2014$, monthly Social Security benefits are equal to about $743 plus 32% of monthly income between $826 and $4980 plus 15% of monthly income between $4980 and $9750. The calculation of the benefit in tiers has made the expected rate of return negative for everybody whose income is near the FICA cap. This has been true since the 1980s. For many low income earners, the expected rate of return is still infinite or nearly infinite since what they pay in FICA gets rebated in the Earned Income Tax Credit.

*&%# the seniors and boomers. They're equally culpable for voting for the congressmen who kept the Ponzi scheme running the last 80 years; they can do their part to make things right for us victims too.

There have already been proposals to do this (couldn't find any links on a quick search). One idea was to do away with the 401(k) and replace it with a national retirement account. This account would replace and/or supplement social security which doesn't provide enough money. Because, you know, if we do the exact same thing with a different name, it will work this time.

One of the clowns who argued against 401(k)s said that (i) because people choose to not use them and (ii) brokers get too many fees.

However, the same person also argued that everyone's retirement should basically consist of annuities. I'm no financial expert but (i) I've read a number of financial advisers and all of the ones I've read hate annuities and (ii) my recollection is that annuities are very lucrative for the people who sell them.

Most of what I find/found troubling about the way these things are discussed in the media are the claims like,

"The Tax Policy Center in Washington has found that about 80% of retirement savings benefits flow to the top 20% of earners. Eliminating the deduction for retirement savings would hit the well-off disproportionately, a condition with a lot of appeal in the current political climate."

Basically, people attempting to claim that "Rich People Benefit From Saving"... therefore, "Regular people should hate savings!!".... utter insanity. Destroying your own ability to save in order to spite "the rich" is treated as rational-populism.

but one should be prepared for a renewal of this sort of thing sooner or later.

The tl; dr version: Teresa Ghilarducci, prof. at The New School was accused of proposing a plan to seize 401(k). That is untrue. However, she did propose limiting tax deductions on 401(k) contributions AND

She would force all workers to save 5 percent of their annual income in a new type of retirement vehicle, which she calls a Guaranteed Retirement Account. These savings could not be controlled by workers like IRAs and 401(k) assets, but would instead be deposited with the government. Workers could not touch the money until retirement, she says, and even then the savings could not be drawn out any way workers might desire, but would be converted to an annuity – a guaranteed stream of income for life. Ghilarducci argues that these new accounts would avoid stock market risks; the government would guarantee that the savings earn a 3 percent annual return on top of inflation.

Which would, among other things, effectively destroy 401(k) plans.

It's amazing just how quickly people who think this way go straight to "force," "government" and control.

That would be the point. It is absolutely in the government's best interests to convince people that they are too stupid to manage their own money, because that opens the door for "let the government manage it for you". And of course, the government as a money manager is Bernie Madoff times a million.

It's amazing just how quickly people who think this way go straight to "force," "government" and control.

It's what they do. It's all they know. They actually cannot comprehend *not* forcing people to do things. That seems really strange to people who don't think that way, but it's the way they think and you need to realize that to try and deal with and understand them.

An effect of this mandatory savings that becomes an annuity is to ensure that fewer middle and working class families have any estate to pass on. Here’s why. Most middle to lower income families will not put much into savings beyond this 5% required. Some will struggle even putting 5% away. Their estate will most likely be just that and maybe their personal residence. Under the plan as proposed this forced savings becomes an annuity upon retirement. Typically, annuities stop after the annuitant (and maybe the surviving spouse) dies. There is no asset to pass on. One can pass on 401(k), IRA and other qualified retirement plan assets to whomever one wishes. For example, under this new forced savings plan Grandad has amassed $200k. He retires, the $200k is put into an annuity. Grandpa dies a year later. Grandma dies a few years later. Poof, the insurance company that handled the annuity or the government gets to keep the balance of the funded annuity; potential beneficiaries, heirs or charities get nothing. What next, forcing everyone who owns a home into a reverse mortgage upon retirement So houses cannot be passed along?
This type of plan has the potential to increase income inequality as those who make more can afford to put away money outside of this 5% saving plan, will likely invest it getting a better rate than 3% over inflation and will pass along the non-forced savings/annuity assets to heirs upon their death.

When the next big financial dump comes, the usual suspects will be crying (again) about all those poor, poor investors who lost money and how this means people shouldn't be allowed to invest their own money the way they see fit. The only way to protect them will be to impose investment requirements as a condition of having a tax-advantaged account.

You will just have to keep X% of your 401(k)/IRA in Treasuries. For your own good.

And, conveniently, the government will be needing a big new market for its debt, because the overseas markets are drying up, and they want to spend another several triillion on "stimulus".

Its a slow-motion confiscation of retirement accounts. And its coming (or at least a very hard push for it is coming).

Most are probably not aware that in the federal version of the 401(k) the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) one of the five funds is a special class of Treasuries(G fund). For some years now the fed has been borrowing the amount held in that G fund and putting it in the Feds general fund for day-to-day operations.

That's why, like always, they will find a way to couch it or sneak it in that doesn't cause such a revolt. Whether it's RC's idea of requiring holding of Treasuries in retirement accounts, or a "merging" of 401ks with Social Security, or whatever the cunning parasites can come up with.

The parasites *always* need more money. Always. And knowing this, and looking at their track record, those retirement accounts are half federalized already (because they are basically you keeping your own version of Social Security; remember what happens if you try and access that money before you are "allowed" to), and they know they have leverage on them. There is no way in hell they are not salivating over that money and actively scheming about how to get their hands on it.

This is what they do. They are thieves and parasites and they spend a lot of their day thinking about how to ever-increasingly take more of your money and labor and possessions. They would take it all in an instant if they could get away with it. Don't ever think they won't take anything they can the instant they can figure out a way to do it without being dragged out of their houses and hung from lampposts.

First, they work the envy angle, which is already. That is, they are already using the MSM to propagandize the fact that the top 10% of retirement account balances is over $250,000 whereas the median account balance is just $2500. (The fact that this is determined as much by age as it is by income can be safely ignored.) Eventually, there will be a "modest" proposal to nationalize the excesses that the top 10% or 5% or some such enjoy, because envy-inspired notions of "fairness" work so well.

Yeah, I think that one is unlikely. I could see the tax rules being changed, though. But 401k's are too common. A lot of people across all income levels have one. Retirement savings plans are probably similarly untouchable to SS.

Well, if you made the move during the next financial downturn when people lost a lot of money from their accounts, accuse Wall Street of destroying the economy, and promising to make it all better, I could see a lot of people going along with it.

This is pretty much what Lenin did with the NEPmen: they could make profits under the New Economic Policy, but they had to buy government bonds. Of course, these bonds were never redeemed because by their maturity the NEPmen resided in a gulag somewhere (if they were lucky).

And even that amount of borrowing will not be enough. The feds will then borrow that forced Treasuries portion of a 401(k)/IRA just like it has been doing for several years with treasuries that are held in the federal employees TSP(similar to a 401(k)).

"Here's a cherry on top, especially if you're not already retired: Biden is on the record saying, "There will be no changes to Social Security" or Medicare. That plays well with seniors but it is a declaration of war against younger Americans."

But he's a D, so they'll vote for him anyhow, otherwise what could they tell their friends?

That they voted for a D because people with an R next to their name are itching to send them to some ME quagmire?

You mean its terrible for a 20 year old to pay taxes so they can retire in 45 years or so. I'll admit at that age I wasn't wise enough to think that far ahead, but now that I'm older i see the upside of not having to work until the day i keel over.

A 20 year-old doesn't pay taxes so that he can retire in 45 years. He pays taxes so that some geezer can retire at 65 and play golf rather than work.

The standard argument is that people won't save for their retirement, so the government must do it for them. What a sad, pathetic joke ... the government has squandered everything it collected in FICA "contributions" on shit like wars, crony bailouts, cash for clunkers, the drug war, and phony green energy projects. In other words, it took money that individuals might or might not have saved for retirement, depending upon individual needs and time preferences, and squandered everybody's money.

You mean its terrible for a 20 year old to pay taxes so they can retire in 45 years or so.

I want to see the SS account with my name on it. I want to track the balance and see my own contributions going towards my own retirement. Surely, you can point me to someplace where this information exists?

This is a perfect post. I'm a week away from 60 and try to tell younger people I know they need to demand this option. One of the only decent things Bush did was propose that option.Of course it was roundly dismissed.

People your age should realize that FICA is stealing your and your employers money. Team red and blue seem oblivious to this. I hope you can get people your age to call bullshit on it. Good luck because many folks your age seem oblivious to this(not a diss as I was not that concerned at 25), your generation needs to get together and speak up for your interests.

Went out and had a few beers with my brother, talked to some Japanese girl with bright red hair and came home to my wife. She's pissy because I came home late, but I always come home. It's a good day even if we have psychos with their fingers on the button. It's still a good world, boys. Don't you forget it.

It think that in some way messianic complex is salient symptom of our country's social and economic decline. Not that the candidates are messianic in their own minds (which most are) rather the sheep voters for either party have the need for a messiah. Nature is said to abhor a vacuum (despite much of the Universe being a vacuum.)

During the debate over the Patriot Act of 2001 then Senator Joe Biden compared this bill to its 2001 counterpart stating "I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill."

Here's the barometer for whether or not Bidden decides to get in the race. If Hillary is going to get indicted, Obama will tell uncle Joe and he'll throw his hat in the ring. If she's not going to be indicted, Joe sits this one out.

As much as he completely loathes her, Blocko doesn't have the balls to indict her, and he's not going to. If he did, he would have done it by now. He knows damn well that the set of morons that worships him is almost identical to the set of morons that worships her. He has been trying to weaken her in the desperate hope that she'll drop out on her own, but it's the worst bluff of all time and it ain't gonna happen.

If Biden wants to try and make his last grab at the ring, he's simply going to have to quit being such a fucking pussy and take her head on.

Honestly, I would prefer Biden as president over Clinton and Sanders. He would be largely ineffective, and probably rendered useless by a GOP Congress. It's sad that I want the most useless person to be president, but here we are.

I would also enjoy listening to my lefty friends desparately trying to claim the guy isn't a complete moron.

Not sad at all, anymore than wishing for the least deadly form of cancer. Hillary would Mondale the brand with her Incompetent Nixon act, Biden is a transparent huckster whose sole political strength--his old-man hucksterism--simultaneously causes the press to shuffle their feet nervously every time he opens his mouth, and Sanders is the Mirror Universe Ron Paul who's getting a platform because the Democrats lack anyone else who'll make Hillary look palatable and vibrant.

None of them would inherit BHO's cult of personality among the Daily Show audience who ooh and ahh every time he appears on a sycophantic podcast, and a modern president can't hide from the popular eye the same way that a senator or cabinet official might. You can sweep Biden's behavior under the rug because a third of Americans don't even know he's VP, but you can't do that when he's all over Fox and CNN a half hour each day.

I wouldn't underestimate the press's willingness to smear lipstick on any executive pig given how they treated Bush for the first three years of his administration, but that job would be considerably harder given how charmless and incompetent Hillary is in her public presentation and how gross Biden is every time he goes off script, which he would every time he stands in front of a microphone.

"Since 2010, most workers will get less from Social Security than they put in (assuming a 2 percent annual return on the employer's and employee's contributions)."

So, is this assumption based on right-wing assumptions that social security will fall on its face in 25 years or so or that politicians will actually fucking fix the program by taxing people that make 200,000/yr at the same rate it taxes people making 20,000/yr?

A quick scan didn't show that they were projecting solvency at current benefit levels over the next 60 years (which is what you would need for your hypothetical 20 year old to collect benefits until they are 80).

I could easily have missed it. Perhaps you could point that out for us?

Where did I say the GGB was federally funded? You're problem is that you don't consider county and municipal governments as government. You see, they built the GGB to stimulate the local economy, provide jobs, ease transport, beautify the city. Say, that sounds similar to why governments at every level build things.

If your point is that it's preferable for local governments to make infrastructure investments, subject to protections provided to individuals by a national government, then maybe we agree on more things than we disagree.

that federal infrastructure spending is just money-for-nothing, treated as a good in and of itself regardless of what it is "for".

(see the ARRA boondoggles, billions in "green" subsidies down the toilet, GSA projects for un-used buildings, etc. noted in the original comment which you apparently didn't read or failed to understand)

...while local-bond issues backed by local banks and demanded by business interests - which take *zero dollars out of taxpayer pockets* - are driven by actual demand.

(noted = and private interests prevailed over and above opposition to the GG bridge by govt interests like the military, and attempts by environmental groups to use state power to block it)

All you're doing is proving my point - you're far too stupid to even understand the evidence you try to bring to bear. Watching you bang your head against the wall repeatedly is embarrassing.

So you're saying that instead of just a slightly losing proposition for rich people, SS should be a massively losing proposition for rich people. And you think the people with extra money to contribute to political campaigns will go along with that?

Financially, they could continue the provide negative returns, continue to borrow, and perhaps raid the military budget to keep this dead baby afloat for the foreseeable future. But of course that doesn't change the fact that it's theft. Politically, I don't know how negative returns can continue to be supported by the majority but then I don't understand how Trump and Sanders are doing so well either. Maybe the assumption is that people can't do basic math which is probably a good assumption considering lotto pots.

We've only had one BABY BOOM. Once, the baby boomers die off, we'll be back to the same retirement-work ratios. But, for those 20-30 years, we'll have to pony up.

You can fix social security over-night by doing any one the following:
1. Remove the FICA CAP altogether
2. Apply FICA to Capital Gains
3. recapture the SSI Fund from the General Treasury (mess created by Reagan in 1986)
4. Means-test Social Security so that anyone making more than 2-3 times the national median don't receive anything (although this may already built into the tax code).

Okay, even if we buy the whole "safety net" bullshit for stuff like unemployment benefits where I don't need them now, but I might need them later, so I'll pay for them now, that just isn't what social security is. It's not like I can retire ineligible, and then somehow magically become eligible, so if I paid through the nose to support it my whole life, then by definition I am ineligible for benefits (i.e. theft).

And this is ignoring the unrealistic nightmare your big scary rich people cut-off is. You just assume that people fall into neat little lines and are just always rich or always poor, which is just divorced from reality. People generally start off poor while they are young and then become richer as they grow older and develop skills/gain experience/start buisinesses/etc. So how would you cutoff work? Would there be a set number of years you are allowed to exceed the limit while still being eligible for benefits? Going by your own logic of the evil rich people needing to plan for themselves, this could result in some non-needy people "taking" benefits from the poor.

Would it be that if you go over at any point in your life you are disqualified automatically? This would inevitably screw over some actually needy people who had things going well for a little bit before bad luck set in, but even if we ignore those people, you are just going to end up with tons of people who would have been earning slightly more than the limit opting to stay under because it makes financial sense, which means you have a large segment of people who could have been independent becoming government dependent, and your benefitee pool would still be way larger than your "people to rob" pool, so you would go bankrupt any ways. Also, since only those who knew they could vastly out earn the cutoff threshold would ever elect to go over, you would certainly end up with a bunch of that "income inequality" bad stuff.

In other words, you are an ignorant dumbass who doesn't give even the slightest amount of meaningful thought to the bullshit you spout and just supports whatever idea "feels" good, but I'm sure if you had any shred of self-awareness you would have known this by now, so my pointing it out is meaningless.

In Bowey's magical world, 'Christian' means getting as many people together as possible, demanding whatever they want from others and threatening them with violence or death if they resist. Of course, those of us who are more civilized refer to this as 'barbarism' instead.

'The fact is, if you eliminate the cap, the FICA rate would not be 15%.
It would be much much lower.'

The fact is not that. Unlike income taxes, there is only one FICA withholding rate. There are no marginal FICA rates. So, if the cap on FICA withholding is eliminated then more income will be subject to the same 15% tax. The effective rate will still be 15%, unless your advocating a lower FICA rate which I did not see in any of your 4 points listed above. It is only under the current system that some people's income has a lower effective FICA rate because they exceed the cap so the total withheld for FICA computes a lower effective tax rate on their total wages.

There was a a study considered by a progressive that proved progressive atheists gave far less to charity as a group than co servatives that believe in some form of religion, or even progs that believe in religion. And you're confusing stealing people's money at gunpoint with giving. Which the progtards always do. Because you know deep down that you wouldn't give anyone a fucking penny if you weren't forced to. You really just want to force others to pay for everything. That is what you're really all about.

You know, it's extra pathetic when sockpuppeting handle hoppers have to use an alternate spelling of the handle they want to appropriate. But hey, you keep pretending, it seems to make you...uh...happy?

Not only that but capital gains tax does not take into account the effect of inflation. You could be paying taxes on dollar denominated gains that do not have the equivalent purchasing power as the dollars used at the time of the purchase of the capital asset.

Exactly, it's an awfully big leap to just off-handedly declare the administrations that ran Afghanistan and Iraq dumber than the administrations that ran WW I and Vietnam (among others).

I believe common use of "this century" usually refers to the round century -- "the 2000s" "the 1900s" "the 21st century" -- one is currently in. If people mean "in the past 100 years" they usually phrase it that way.

It began as a news report on how some government workers got paid for doing nothing in the legislature of Goias, a state in Brazil’s interior. But the clips of an employee running away from a TV reporter have sparked a national uproar — going viral and inspiring a cellphone game that has been downloaded more than 600,000 times.

WeLoveBernie.net is a new, Facebook-like social network devoted to progressive causes. Inspired by Bernie Sanders and his message about taking back America for the 99%, the social network offers the bells and whistles of Facebook where users can post profiles and photos, promote their organizations, books, music, artwork, films, documentaries and other items of interest to this community. The network can support multiple languages and 100 million users.

Inspired by Bernie Sanders and his message about taking back America for the 99%

When people who are not morons realize that "the 1%" don't actually have all that much money, relative to the grandiose vision of "taking back America" and what it will cost, they are going to come after a lot of people in "the 99%" as well.

It's going to be the 50+n% against the 50-n% and n isn't going to be anywhere near 49.

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.buzznews99.com

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.buzznews99.com

Self seeking politicians are fooling the people with their hypocrisy Biden is a poster boy for hypocrisy, all he has to offer is a grin. Trump is lots of fun while seeking a seat in the oval office. He is not a teleprompter reader, his script come off the tip of his tongue. But if you like being a patsy, support a boring professional politician.

Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go﻿ to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

They [presidential candidates] are all scam artists, no differently from all previous presidents, regardless of party affiliation. :-) .

But so what?

I don't care which scam artist finally gets elected, or which doesn't, nor what the Fed does/does not do, nor whether, according to Mr "investment advisor with a near perfect prediction record" [insert name of choice] , we are supposedly in for recession, depression, deflation, hyper inflation, a stock market boom, or whatever .

Why? Because whatever happens, my entirely self-managed, fully diversified, once per year adjusted long term savings plan will be safely protected and will , 9 times out of 10, grow at an average of 8% per annum over and above the prevailing inflation [or deflation], rate, year in, year out, as it has since 1986 when I started using it.

For a link to the plans results 1972-2011, email: onebornfreeatyahoodotcom ,
with "Savings Plan Results" in the subject line

No, Biden isn't that good of a choice. But he is a million times better than Hillary. I'm not much of a pub fan, but he democrats are a mess. You have to be a moron to think that Hillary is competent for any office. That certainly increases Biden's appeal, if you're a democrat.

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.buzznews99.com